- This topic has 140 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by djrobsd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 13, 2007 at 5:29 PM #116628December 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM #116432DCRogersParticipant
Rustico,
In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…
If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?
December 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM #116565DCRogersParticipantRustico,
In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…
If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?
December 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM #116597DCRogersParticipantRustico,
In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…
If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?
December 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM #116640DCRogersParticipantRustico,
In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…
If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?
December 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM #116654DCRogersParticipantRustico,
In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…
If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?
December 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM #116674NotCrankyParticipantI think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.
I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.
Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.
December 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM #116805NotCrankyParticipantI think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.
I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.
Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.
December 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM #116837NotCrankyParticipantI think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.
I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.
Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.
December 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM #116880NotCrankyParticipantI think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.
I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.
Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.
December 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM #116896NotCrankyParticipantI think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.
I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.
Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.
December 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM #116947patientlywaitingParticipantIt seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.
Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.
People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.
December 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM #117079patientlywaitingParticipantIt seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.
Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.
People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.
December 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM #117113patientlywaitingParticipantIt seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.
Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.
People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.
December 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM #117155patientlywaitingParticipantIt seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.
Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.
People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.